They instead sent an unmistakable 180 degree signal to the world . . . that the United States is now perfectly happy to endorse the immediate inclusion of a known Islamist terror-supporting organization as a power-sharing partner in a "reform" government of Egypt, such participation conditioned only on their rejection of violence and recognition of democratic goals!

A leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt told the Arabic-language Iranian news network Al-Alam on Monday that he would like to see the Egyptian people prepare for war against Israel, according to the Hebrew-language business newspaper Calcalist.

Muhammad Ghannem reportedly told Al-Alam that the Suez Canal should be closed immediately, and that the flow of gas from Egypt to Israel should cease "in order to bring about the downfall of the Mubarak regime." He added that "the people should be prepared for war against Israel," saying the world should understand that "the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime."

Ghannem praised Egyptian soldiers deployed by President Hosni Mubarak to Egyptian cities, saying they "would not kill their brothers." He added that Washington was forced to abandon plans to help Mubarak stay in power after "seeing millions head for the streets."

You know, I think I’m going with Bill Roggio on this one. As he recently put it in context, the Muslim Brotherhood is a "gateway to al-Qaeda" Islamist organization.

"[a]n al Qaeda operative from Jordan [who] was killed during a recent US airstrike in Pakistan’s Taliban-controlled tribal agency of North Waziristan . . . .".

And further down in his piece, he made the following observation:

. . .Shami served as an ideologue and as a bodyguard for senior al Qaeda leader Mustafa Abu Yazid, the group’s commander in Afghanistan and chief financier. According to Shami’s brother, he worked for Taliban Radio in Afghanistan in 2001. Shami’s father is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group that is a gateway to al Qaeda, and Shami’s other brother Ibrahim was captured by US forces in Afghanistan in 2001 and spent five years at Guantanamo Bay before being released in 2006.. . . . (my emphasis)

On the English language version of their website called, "Ikwanweb", consider the Muslim Brotherhood's specious response, an attempt to belittle the statement with the following title . . . "The Muslim Brotherhood is the new marijuana".

It would be a laughable argument if it were not so treacherous . . . i.e., that this would somehow be the same as saying (as they did) that the Catholic Church and the Republican Party must be "gateways" to terrorism because of the actions of the racist domestic terrorist, Eric Robert Rudolph!

Even the writer of the Muslim Brotherhood article linked above, concedes that basic point, thus essentially obviating the legitimacy of the remainder of the "response" to Bill Roggio.

Again, from the article:

"If you want to argue that the Muslim Brotherhood is an ideological predecessor to al-Qaeda, fine. You can draw a line from Sayyid Qutb’s writings to modern-day salafi thought."

Indeed!

This, of course, leaves the rest of us with one glaring question. Who do you suppose made that "3 a.m. call" to the President telling him his recommendation that MB "renounce violence" as a condition to our feeling comfortable with their participation in an Egyptian "reform government" seems to have been summarily rejected . . . Hillary?

Whoever it was, I can just imagine it might have happened something like this:

* * * * *

President Obama:"Hello? Is that you Fenster?"

(State Dept. Aide) Fenster:"Yes sir. Good morning, sir. Mr. President, regarding Egypt, I have some good news and some bad news, sir."

President Obama:"Don't fool around with me, Fenster, just give me the good news first!"

" ... It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?>"